Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 151 U.S. 242 - In re Bonner

In re Bonner’s Empirical Analysis

151 U.S. 242 · 1894

Citation profile

909
cited by 909 later decisions
57
cited 57 times by the Supreme Court
40
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

381 federal appellate · 87 district · 234 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 909 later decisions (57 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Preiser v. Rodriguez (1973), Hilton v. Braunskill (1987)

381 federal appellate · 87 district · 234 state decisions — followed in 40 states

135018941900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Ex parte Lange · Ex parte Virginia · Ex Parte Nielsen · Medley

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 909 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “power to control and direct the form of judgment to be entered in cases brought up before it on habeas corpus,”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Much complaint is made that persons are 'often discharged from arrest and imprisonment when their conviction, upon which such imprisonment was ordered, is perfectly correct; the excess of jurisdiction on the part of the court being in enlarging the punishment, or in enforcing it in a different mode or place than that provided by the law. * *- * Thg judges of all courts of record are magistrates, and their object should be, not to turn loose upon society persons who have been justly convicted of criminal offenses, but, where the punishment imposed, in the mode, extent, or place-of its execution, has exceeded the law, to have it corrected by calling the attention of the court to such excess. * * * “He [the prisoner] complains of the unlawfulness of his place of imprisonment. He is only entitled to relief from that unlawful feature, and that he would obtain if opportunity be given to that court for correction in that particular. * * * In a vast majority of cases the extent and mode and place of punishment may be corrected by the original court without a new trial, and the party punished as he should be, while relieved from any excess committed by the court, of which he complains. In such ease the original court would only set aside what it had no authority to do, and substitute directions required by the law to be done upon the conviction of the offender.””
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““We are unable to agree with the learned counsel, but are of opinion that, in all cases where life or liberty is affected by its proceedings, the court must keep strictly within the limits of the law authorizing it to take jurisdiction, and to try the case, and to render judgment. It cannot pass beyond those limits, in any essential requirement in either stage of these proceedings; and its authority in those particulars is not to be enlarged by any mere inferences from the law, or doubtful construction of its terms.””
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.